With great sadness, I will have to bet that the Dems will accept the administration's proposal, though after a lot of chest beating and shouting.

The greatest contribution of Rove was to have figured out that the Dem leaders are weaklings of the middle school that take their beating without any real defense.

From what I've seen of Petraeus, he is just a little bit too much of a straight shooter to go in and trash the place like Fredo. If someone asks him straight question he starts to answer with the truth, then catches himself and starts to tamp down his response, but at that point it is too late and he has let a few truths fly.
The administration can't handle that, so will send Condi, she will say "I'm not sure, I'll gladly find out for you and send a written response." The written response, of course, won't come until Jan. 2009.

This note surprised me as just yesterday I was picking up some discussion on other blogs that it was the Democratic leadership that was planning on closed hearings, with the implication being that they did not want the Petraeus briefing exposed to the media under the pretense that the message may be positive on Iraq.

So what gives, do we really know which side is proposing what?

So why the ridiculous suggestion that Petraeus and Crocker testify only in closed session? They couldn't possibly have believed that anyone would agree to that. I suppose the conclusion we're supposed to draw is that the Petraeus/Crocker report is going to be negative and the White House is getting worried about losing Republican support.

Nonsense Kevin. You're reading too much into it. The reason why Petraeus is limiting his testimony in Capitol Hill is two fold. First he's a busy man. He has a war to fight and win. The war in Iraq is General Petraeus's war and he wants to concentrate on what is most important and that is winning the war. Spending less time at Capitol Hill means he has more time to spend winning.
Second, General Petraeus believes his report speaks for itself and he doesn't need to go through a lot of grilling at Capitol Hill to explain what he has written in his report to Congress. I think these are much better and simpler explanations than the one you gave.

Shorter Al: "I have the talking points right here, and they are doubleplusgood! Cookie now?"

The discussion in the oft-quoted article in the LA Times today about Petraeus reccommending a troop draw-down, or reallignment, was that if testimony of any reallignment gets too specific, it would be better given in private session. A reasonable concern.

So expect some public testimony, and some private session testimony.

General Petraeus believes his report speaks for itself and he doesn't need to go through a lot of grilling at Capitol Hill to explain what he has written in his report to Congress.

Al, you ever-loyal sycophantic Death Eater, it isn't even going to be his report.

I gotta give the Al-bot credit for staying on message, but I am certain if it wasn't 3:00 a.m. and time for bed, I could go find some comment posts where he told us dirty hippies that we needed to wait for Petraeus to make his report before drawing conclusions.

Did anyone catch the part where the Administration would write the report with input from Petraeus and Crocker?

just curious: Yes. That is in the first sentence of my post on the topic.

With great sadness, I will have to bet that the Dems will accept the administration's proposal, though after a lot of chest beating and shouting.

gregor nails it. Doesn't matter what the proposal actually is. Dems are once again applying their winning strategy of trying to out-tough the Repubs on national security - based on what the candidates are saying.

Rove stayed on until the Petraeus report came out -- his last, big job managing all the stage props.

After this Bush is on his own. He will shrivel in the sun like a raisin.

BGRS got there first. Phooey. It's what I get for sleeping in :).
Anyway, the latest pravda is that Congress asked for a report from "the President", even though every single statement up until then referred to a report from Petraeus & Crocker. Down the rabbit hole we go, once again...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070815-1.html

A simple explanation for keeping Petraeus behind closed doors is that the White House, which will write the report, would like the imprimatur of Petraeus without forcing Petraeus himself to need to lie about the report under oath.

The only reason that Petraeus will not testify in public is that it would then be obvious that he had no written the report. That would be an embarrassment. Of course, after that total idiot Gonzales testified, embarrassment is not a serious issue for BushCo.

Watching Congressional democrats dance with George Bush reminds me of Charlie Brown, Lucy and football. The triumph of unrewarded hope over history.

Did anybody really believe Bush would do anything on the level, yet many Democrats and nearly all Republicans said that if only we wait until September for General Petraeus's report we would be at a decision point. The SOB isn't even going to give his own report, and his appearances before Congress are going to be limited.

So why the ridiculous suggestion that Petraeus and Crocker testify only in closed session? They couldn't possibly have believed that anyone would agree to that. I suppose the conclusion we're supposed to draw is that the Petraeus/Crocker report is going to be negative and the White House is getting worried about losing Republican support.

Nonsense Kevin. You're reading too much into it. Followed by the latest Republican't disinformation alert. You go, sycophantic Putsch fellator!

Funny thing, though - when NASA revises their average annual temparatures by .0001 degrees, that seems to be perfectly okay, and not reading too much into it.

Republican'ts - can't seem to make any sort of mouth noises that are reality-based.

Oops - the second last graf s/b:

Funny thing, though - when NASA revises their average annual temparatures by .0001 degrees, and the neocon bloggers use it to discedit climate change, that seems to be perfectly okay, and not reading too much into it.

We apologize for the inconvenience...

The skirmishing is an indication of the rising anxiety on all sides in the remaining few weeks before the presentation of what is widely considered a make-or-break assessment of Bush's war strategy....Lawmakers from both parties are growing worried that the report — far from clarifying the United States' future in Iraq — will only harden the political battle lines around the war.

The key word is "private" Congressional briefing. They obviously don't want Congresscritters questioning Crock and Betrayus on the "progress" cited by the White House-authored report (or, for that matter, how much input the White House actually had...)

The congressional Dems are acting like representative government still exists. It's like "The Caine Mutiny", where the exec acts like the captain isn't nuts despite the whole crew thinking otherwise because the alternative is unthinkable.
As for the Report, we'll see it all. If it favors the Administration policy, it'll be leaked all over, starting with Kristol or Novak; if not, some major will give it to Sy Hersh.

It's about managing public perception. By avoiding public transparency, it makes the info seem more important, too critical for mere mortals to be trusted with.

Bush can afterward portray it any way he wants to the public and cast Dems as cut-and-runners even if Petraeus advises them to withdraw the troops.

I predict that the Petraeus report will not be given until November. Yes, they'll stall all throughout October. And then they'll point to some minor achievement in October as proof that 'progress is being made'.

The White House doens't care about this report,much like it didn't care about the previous Iraq Commission report. Notice how little it did to act on any of their suggestions. The only issue at hand is to delay and deceive further. And, yes, Democratic Party members are weaklings.

"The skirmishing is an indication of the rising anxiety on all sides"

As Josh Marshall pointed out, this is a little ridiculous. Bushco is scrambling to figure out how to minimize the impact of "Petraeus'" report by going to the extraordinary lengths of writing it themselves and preventing Petraeus from testifying in public, even though he's already on the record saying he will.

Despite the WaPo's false equivalence, I haven't seen a lot of anxiety on the Democratic or anti-war side. We know they have jack shit to report that's favorable.

But from the perspective of a WaPo media whore, that looks like both sides getting anxious.

The White House must really be reeling and in its panic making a big mistake. From a political point of view it is greatly to the Democrats' advantage to have Condi or some other political hack as the WH's public face than Petraeus. It might be difficult to go after Petraeus as a self-serving stooge but not at all so to do that with Condi--she's already got established bona fides in that area. If they do try to hide Petraeus and Crocker from public view, it would be a fatal political mistake IF the Democrats wish to take advantage of it. That IF is always the stumbling block, of course.

Furthermore, it would enable the Dems to constantly be pointing out Petraeus's absence and wondering out loud why the WH didn't want him to go public. In short, hiding Petraeus and Crocker would make the WH look just like it is: deceitful and guilty.

And then they'll point to some minor achievement in October as proof that 'progress is being made up'.

There, fixed it for you.

Bush want to fight them over there, so he doesn't have to fight us over here.

Nice touch to bring some of those Enron auditors off the dole and have them write the report.

As noted by Alexander Cockburn at Informed Comment today, the number crunchers for the Surge have been transferred to the Fiction Wing of the Pentagon.

First: Petraeus isn't writing that report, the whitehouse is writing that report.
Second: Things in Iraq are going so sour that they aren't willing to let Petraeus admit it in public - which is what open testimony would be.
Third: This follows in the tradition of this administration to refuse to answer to Congress any question on record.

If you dug a little further, you'd find out that the closed testimony will also be transcript-free and since the administration refuses to allow anyone to testify under oath, the "testimony" will also be truth-free.

... the White House, which will write the report, would like the imprimatur of Petraeus without forcing Petraeus himself to need to lie about the report under oath.

Petraeus: the next Colin Powell.

Petraeus: the next Colin Powell.

Exactly. I suspect that the reason Petraeus is not writing or testifying is because he refuses to be the next Colin Powell.

It's pretty obvious; all that has to happen is one Congressman or Senator asks the question "General Petraeus, who produced the report we are reading? How much input did you have? Why do you think that the White House was unwilling to have you write the report?"

Spending less time at Capitol Hill means he has more time to spend winning.
Second, General Petraeus believes his report speaks for itself and he doesn't need to go through a lot of grilling at Capitol Hill to explain what he has written in his report to Congress.

OK Al, now explain why the US Ambassador to Iraq
will require a private session with Congress to discuss the report (that the White House is writing for him).

Nice touch to bring some of those Enron auditors off the dole and have them write the report.

Hilarious.

If you dug a little further, you'd find out that the closed testimony will also be transcript-free and since the administration refuses to allow anyone to testify under oath, the "testimony" will also be truth-free.

That doesn't sound like a very good idea. I'm grateful we have a unified, organized Democratic caucus and a responsible media to point this out so it'll be clear to the average American.

But this sounds more like expectations management to me than anything else. If everyone is expecting a bombshell, a merely mediocre report will end up being greeted with relief.

—Kevin Drum

I thnk this is half right. Petraeus is in Bush's pocket. Dems will demand loudly that he testify in public. And then he will do so and give Bush all the cover he needs.

It's a trap.

General Dave Petraeus is not an idiot by all accounts and was one of the more effective Leaders in Iraq during his first rotation in Iraq.

He also studied what happened to the US Army after the Vietnam War. I wonder sometimes if the only reason he took this role on was to stop what happened to the Army after that War happening again after this War.

It was suggested that the only reason that Petraeus will not testify in public is that it would then be obvious that he had no written the report.

This might nearly be right, what if he actually refused to do a Colin Powell and read out a report which had been prepared for him by the White House. This might have forced the White House to have a closed door session where the General tells everyone what's really happening and then the White House publishes their sanitised version for General consumption.

The reactions of Generals Zinni and Shinseki in the press afterwards will give us a real indication of how far the gap between the report and reality actually is.

Folks, Petraeus never would have gotten the job if the fix wasn't already in. It doesn't matter who delivers the fake report -- it's gonna be fake either way.

In a long-running gag in the late Charles Schultz's classic comic strip Peanuts, Charlie Brown was forever frustrated in trying to kick a football held by Lucy, who always yanked it away at the final second, leaving her friend flat on his back with the wind knocked out of him.

Were the nominally apolitical Mr. Schultz around today to update his humorous metaphor on life's disappointments, perhaps he would finally allow Charlie Brown to kick those footballs, only to be eternally flumoxed this time by his repeated inability to notice Lucy and several of the Peanuts gang always moving the goal posts, away from the center of the field toward the far-right sidelines -- while Linus sits placidly in the stands, holding his blanket and sucking his thumb, and waiting in vain for divine intervention by "The Great Pumpkin."

You folks seem to have overlooked the fact that we have tv and newspapers. Even as slanted as they are its easy for anyone to see the Surge has not accomplished anything. Maliki has just split the government, excluding Sunnis and 400-500 civilians were killed in one city this week. 3700 GI's have now died, hundreds since the Surge started. We don't need Petraeus, or Crockofbull, or Rove or Bush to write a report telling us what's happening....we can see it easily for ourselves. The one and only question is what, if anything, the Democratic members of Congress can do about it, making the shakey assumption that they want to do something. We already know Bush intends to stay in Iraq as long as he is in office.

I'm not sure why Kevin believes that the only conclusion "we're supposed to draw is that the Petraeus/Crocker report is going to be negative and the White House is getting worried about losing Republican support," and that the closed session would limit the damage of a negative report.

First, it is the height of absurdity to think that just because it's a closed session, the papers the next day won't be filled with detailed descriptions of what Petraeus and Crocker discussed. Congress leaks like a sieve and this is far too important an issue to be kept behind closed doors (for both sides). So the idea that the administration is trying to bury the story is preposterous - their discussion will be front page news for either an open or a closed session.

Second, a closed session will allow Petraeus and Crocker to discuss classified material without the need to hold additional sessions. An open hearing would certainly get into classified areas and then we'd all get to see them say "we need to discuss this in a closed session" which will interrupt their briefings and only add confusion to the process.

Third, nothing about a closed session precludes senators and congressmen from asking questions.

There is, however, one additional, huge advantage to holding a closed hearing. Without the presence of TV cameras, those senators and congressmen will not feel the need to preach and pontificate when talking to Petraeus and Crocker. The political posturing will come after the briefing, but the briefing itself will (hopefully) be more productive without the senators and congressmen seeking to maximize the soundbite value of their "questions."

Who knows, they might even learn something.

You folks seem to have overlooked the fact that we have tv and newspapers. Even as slanted as they are its easy for anyone to see the Surge has not accomplished anything.

Posted by: T2

I think the MSM will come down on the side of the surge working. In fact, I already see signs of this.

The WH is just doing this because they know it will further p.o. the majority.

Classic schoolyard taunting.

I think the MSM will come down on the side of the surge working.

You think?

This headline yesterday (from, I think, the AP) made me bang my head on my worktable:

"Bombing Cuts Short Surge's Success"

shortstop: "I'm grateful we have a unified, organized Democratic caucus and a responsible media to point this out so it'll be clear to the average American."

And I in turn am grateful that some of us still retain a capacity for gallows humor and some well-timed and pointed sarcasm.

Unfortunately, those people most in need of hearing you are apparently too busy basking in the immediate self-congratulatory afterglow generated by their most recent appearance in that "responsible media," to be otherwise concerned by the growing chorus of anger and frustration within their own respective constituencies.

From what I've seen of Petraeus, he is just a little bit too much of a straight shooter …flounder at 3:01 AM

…In general, military commanders do not typically pronounce their own strategies to have failed; quite the opposite. The need for skepticism here is particularly acute given that there are plenty of Generals with equally impressive military pedigrees who disagree vigorously with Petraeus. War supporters -- who are attempting now to make criticisms of Petraeus off-limits -- long disputed the claims and views of Generals Casey and Abaziad, often quite vigorously, even insultingly. The statements about war from military commanders ought to be subjected to every bit as much scrutiny and skepticism as anyone else's.
But Petraeus in particular has demonstrated that his statements merit particularly potent scrutiny. So many of the misleading government claims over the past several years about The Great Victory we are Achieving in Iraq have been based upon optimistic claims from Petraeus that turned out to be highly questionable, to put it generously.
Indeed, Americans were flooded with good news about Iraq at the end of 2005, the great bulk of which stemmed from an overwhelmingly optimistic November 2005 public report (.pdf), filled with happy news, given by Gen. Petraeus as part of a slide show at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington. Using a series of carefully selected, emotionally manipulative photographs from Iraq, Petraeus disputed "the notion that Baghdad is, if you will, chaos"...

FFor the last few weeks the Admin. has been pushing the "Patraeus" report, they've been making noises about the surge working, they've been mounting a PR campaign by having the Pres. meet with conservative pundits and it seemed to be working. It seemed to be working, the polls were moving in their direction.

I had been complaining that the Dems needed to counter this if they were going to do anything about the war funding bill coming up in Sept.

Now all of the sudden we find that the "Patraeus" report is not the Patraeus report but the Whitehouse report and in fact the Bushies do not want the guy that they've been pushing as the new Messiah to testify in open to Congress, but rather put a known commodity and loyal Bushie in his place: Condi.

They seemed to be winning, why would they do this? I think the answer is very simple: Patraeus will not play their game. He is an honest guy who wants to give an honest report! As we all know so very well, honesty, like the truth, has a liberal bias.

As a citizen, I call BS. I want to hear that report live on CNN or on cspan. I want to see the Gen answer the tough questions and then put forth the Admins plans for the rest of the year and beyond. Its my tax money, the blood of my fellow citizens. I want the truth or as close as we can expect from Bush. But, you right, the Dems will capitulate because after all, they are still girly-men one and all, with no balls to stand of to the mighty minority party.

Hacksaw, your remarks are so absurd as to be indefensible.

In a democracy we value transparency and accountability. Your axiom that "some information will inevitably leak back to the voters so a secret meeting is OK" is anathema to that principle, particularly on a matter this important.

It amazes me that no matter how far this administration pushes the boundaries of the law and ethics, no matter how badly they ignore the Constitution -- there is a cadre of people right there waiting to defend them.

Sorry trex but it is your criticism that is absurd.

My initial point wasn't, as you distorted, that some information will leak out but rather that, closed session or not, the public will know exactly what Petraeus and Crocker reported. It seemed to me that Kevin was suggesting the White House wanted a closed session in order to manage bad news and I responded that this was not possible given the inevitability of the whole story leaking.

Moreover, you have ignored my point about the utility of a closed session enabling senators and congressmen to receive and discuss this report without the distorting and politicizing impact of TV cameras. Yes this country values transparency and accountability, but the notion that this can only be accomplished by Harry Reid of Dick Durbin pontificating for the cameras is more than a little silly. Sometimes a frank discussion away from the media is a far better way to achieve accountability. Or achieve anything for that matter.

As for transparency, within the context of our government it matters little whether the legislature achieves transparency with or without cameras in the room. And for the rest of us, well as noted above, I'm quite sure we will hear all about it immediately after the briefing concludes. Ultimately, I think this country is much better served if our representatives on the Hill are able to absorb and discuss this report without the need to make sound bites for the nightly news.

Moreover, you have ignored my point about the utility of a closed session enabling senators and congressmen to receive and discuss this report without the distorting and politicizing impact of TV cameras.

Since you mention it, this was the point in your original post that made me smile most widely, particularly this:

Without the presence of TV cameras, those senators and congressmen will not feel the need to preach and pontificate when talking to Petraeus and Crocker. The political posturing will come after the briefing, but the briefing itself will (hopefully) be more productive without the senators and congressmen seeking to maximize the soundbite value of their "questions."

You appear to be under the comical impression that the preaching, posturing and soundbite-maximizing is destined to come only from the members of Congress, not from the White House and from Petraeus and Crocker themselves. Further, you continue to believe, despite the mass of accumulated evidence to the contrary, that Petraeus and Crocker are likely to engage in a "frank" discussion of the surge's effectiveness if they can just get Congress alone without cameras, transcripts...or oaths.

While it's not particularly surprising that an alleged DOD employee who continually acts as an apologist for Bush and his prosecution of this "war" should still be so trusting of the motives of this administration and the generals and other agents he hand-selects for their willingness to shade information, perhaps you can see why the rest of the country might be less likely to take it on faith at this point.

shortstop,

I may be a mistrustful of the motives on congressional democrats as you are of Petraeus and Crocker when it comes to how they handle the progress report on Iraq but my point about the impact of cameras on the process applied to both sides. To look at it from your perspective then, Petraeus is more likely to resort to sound bites and posturing if he is delivering his testimony on live TV. Moreover, the 'frank discussion' I alluded to was the discussion between Petraeus/Crocker and Congress, and not claiming that only one side was capable of frankness or earnestness with the cameras on.

As I see it, there are two options here. On the one hand, we can have a live, open hearing in which Petraeus and Crocker deliver their remarks and then both sides in Congress repeat for the umpteenth time their position points on Iraq. Or on the other hand, we can at least create the possibility for our elected representatives to have a slightly less politicized discussion of the impact our forces are having in Iraq and then let them come out before the cameras and repeat their position point on Iraq for the umpteenth time.

No on is asking you or anyone else to take on faith what Petraeus or Crocker say. What I am asking you to consider, however, is what possible use we as a country would have from yet another sound bite exchange over Iraq. The idea that Congress step back a bit from the cameras and actual listen to what these men have to say should not be so lightly dismissed and, frankly, you should have more confidence that was critics in the House and Senate will not take on faith what these men have to say either. Not everything needs to be a 5-second punch line on the evening news.

Oh, and I've never claimed to be a DOD employee and don't consider myself an apologist for Bush. I have been critical of his policies both with regard to how the Iraq war has been fought as well as other issues. It's childish to write off all war supporters as mere Bush stooges or pawns of Rove or Cheney.

my point about the impact of cameras on the process applied to both sides.

If it did, you apparently expected us to get the message telepathically, because nothing in your original statement indicated that you were referring to anyone but members of Congress: "Without the presence of TV cameras, those senators and congressmen will not feel the need to preach and pontificate when talking to Petraeus and Crocker. The political posturing will come after the briefing, but the briefing itself will (hopefully) be more productive without the senators and congressmen seeking to maximize the soundbite value of their 'questions.'"

To look at it from your perspective then, Petraeus is more likely to resort to sound bites and posturing if he is delivering his testimony on live TV.

You've fallen into yet another of your traps of either-or thinking. To actually look at it from my perspective, Petraeus and Crocker are almost guaranteed to resort to convenient shadings, key omissions, heinous exaggerations and plain untruths whether or not the cameras are rolling.

As I see it, there are two options here. On the one hand, we can have a live, open hearing in which Petraeus and Crocker deliver their remarks and then both sides in Congress repeat for the umpteenth time their position points on Iraq. Or on the other hand, we can at least create the possibility for our elected representatives to have a slightly less politicized discussion of the impact our forces are having in Iraq and then let them come out before the cameras and repeat their position point on Iraq for the umpteenth time.

Again, implicit in your two "options" is a trust that frank, truthful and ethical testimony will necessarily be coming from Petraeus and Crocker, and that the only proper basis for deciding whether to allow a public record is how doing so might influence the behavior of members of Congress.

I note you haven't even touched on the fact that the White House is asking for no transcripts and no oaths. Apparently your belief in the good will and probity of two men and the White House directing their testimony is such that you can limit your concern to how Congress will react to the unimpeachable contents of this "report." On what previous experience of the Bush administration and this war do you base this touching faith?

What I am asking you to consider, however, is what possible use we as a country would have from yet another sound bite exchange over Iraq. The idea that Congress step back a bit from the cameras and actual listen to what these men have to say should not be so lightly dismissed and, frankly, you should have more confidence that was critics in the House and Senate will not take on faith what these men have to say either.

What you haven't considered, in your two self-serving "options," is that one significant purpose of televising, transcripting and requiring oaths for these hearings is not to affect Petraeus' and Crocker's comments (which, as I stated above, are not likely to change substantially regardless of whether or not there are cameras), but to create a public record of their report for the benefit of the citizenry's eyes and ears. Your rather precious attempt to chide me for my lack of faith in Congressional war critics notwithstanding, the fact is that the electorate is intensely and justifiably distrustful of the administration's attempts to control and shape all information about this war, and frustrated at the difficulty of assessing information when it is fed through the filters you suggest. You are seriously misgauging the cumulative effects on the populace of this administration's endless fabrications and incompetence. How can you not understand that you guys are reaping exactly what you've sown in terms of public trust?

That already epic suspicion can only be magnified by these attempts to keep these hearings secret. For you, at this stage of the game, to blithely suggest that we trust the White House and its military and diplomatic sycophants to just do the right thing behind closed doors shows a really shameful lack of judgment on your part. And that's giving you the benefit of the doubt; it seems far more likely that you're actively advocating a path that you know to be deceptive.

It's childish to write off all war supporters as mere Bush stooges or pawns of Rove or Cheney.

It might be--if I'd actually done that. Whatever makes you think that my specific criticisms of your ongoing conduct extend to every war supporter? Can the irony of your using such binary thinking as the basis for attributing the same to me be lost on you?

Sigh. Yes, I imagine it can.

How is it possible that people can still have trouble understanding how the Bush Regime works after nearly seven years?

We were originally told that (a) Petraeus and Croker would write the report and (b) they would present the report to Congress and answer questions.

A few days ago, we were told the White House will write the report. Obviously that means they intend to scrub it of any bad news.

Now we're told that Petraeus and Crocker will not publicly answer questions about the report from Congress. Clearly the White House does not want people to hear the questions and answers, or for there to be a public record. (As Peter said.)

The only sensible translation of this change is that the White House does not want the following exchange on national TV

Q: "General Petraeus, page 17 of your report says that the surgers are being hailed as liberators and met with candy and flowers. If this is so, why is violence in those areas up?"

A: "Well that isn't what I wrote-- I said we were getting hammered pretty good, but I thought we might get things down to a dull roar in a decade or two if we kept at it. But the White House told me we couldn't include that if we wanted to get more money from Congress."

I don't think Petraeus is a truth-telling hero, but I expect he'll be pretty p.o.ed after two weeks of watching 22-year-olds from Liberty University rewrite his findings (and calling him a traitor who obviously hates the troops when he argues the point).

If I were working in the Bush Regime, I wouldn't want him anywhere near a microphone.

The report will be that we have made some progress and give me more time. Mission creep 101.

Shortstop:

Of course I never did "blithely suggest that we trust the White House and its military and diplomatic sycophants to just do the right thing behind closed doors." I did suggest that having closed hearing made it far more likely that these briefings would be productive.

It is clear from you comments that you expect Petraeus and Crocker to spin their remarks. And that by having an open hearing, the public will benefit because at least those remarks will be on the record. My answer to that was and remains that the contents of this report and the discussion held over it will become public knowledge one way or the other. Th advantage of a closed hearing is that at least for that moment, there is a possibility that something other than further politicization of the debate can occur.

Since you believe that Petraeus and Crocker's comments "are not likely to change substantially regardless of whether or not there are cameras," and you have not claimed that the behavior of Congress would be similarly unaltered by cameras, why not let them deliver their report in an environment where the audience at least may be more receptive to an honest dialog about their findings?

In any event, it now appears that there will be both closed and open hearings. So we will be able to come back to this conversation and evaluate which of the two methods proved the more productive.

Does it matter what Petraeus and Crocker say and to whom? This new poll says most Americans have no trust in this report.